Irrigation management transfer: The experience of the Río Dulce Irrigation Scheme, Argentina^*

Abstract

Many governments and international agencies have promoted irrigation management transfer (IMT) in order to reduce operations and maintenance costs and satisfy farmers' willingness to improve their irrigation service by self‐management. However, IMT has produced both satisfactory and unsatisfactory results. This paper presents a participatory research‐based assessment of IMT in a case study in Northwest Argentina. The study combined conventional irrigation performance assessment and a survey of farmers' perception of the water delivery service and willingness to participate in water users associations. The assessment compared two subsystems in the Río Dulce Irrigation District with different levels of management transfer. Water service in the subsystem where management had been transferred allowed flexible delivery schedules that facilitated a diversified cropping pattern, greater irrigation intensity, and resulted in more water use. Farmers in the transferred subsystem were more aware of the problems of the irrigation service than farmers in the non‐transferred subsystem. The perception of problems in the non‐transferred subsystem increased with the level of the farmer's professionalism and technical knowledge. The transmission of requests and complaints from farmers to managers was more transparent in the transferred subsystem than in the non‐transferred one.

Does organizational support affect the governance performance of the farm irrigation system? Evidence from the Yellow River basin in China

“…Since then, both scholars and governments have increasingly recognized the importance of farmers' participation in irrigation system management and have regarded it as an effective means to reduce management costs and improve governance performance (Meinzen‐Dick, 2007; Suhardiman et al, 2014; Thiel et al, 2015). Thus, irrigation associations have emerged as influential nongovernmental organizations in many countries (Bandyopadhyay et al, 2010; Salgado et al, 2021). Nonetheless, due to variability in leadership, farmers' participation, incentive mechanisms, property rights arrangements and other aspects, irrigation associations are not necessarily influential and have not operated as well as they should in some countries and regions (Djumaboev et al, 2017; Kibaroglu, 2020; Yakoubi et al, 2015).…”

Shared Centre Pivot. An Experience of Smallholder Irrigation in Midwest Brazil

“…However, the yield, irrigation performance and sustainability of smallholder irrigation schemes are extremely variable (Hussain, 2007;Borgia et al, 2013;Gonçalves et al, 2015;Özmen and Kaman, 2015;Mutambara et al, 2016), with many schemes performing below expectations (García-Bolaños et al, 2011;Valdes et al, 2004;Terra, 2010), despite modernization and rehabilitation projects having tried to counteract their deterioration and poor performance (Valdes et al, 2004;Lecina et al, 2010;Mateos et al, 2010;Rodríguez Díaz et al, 2012;Mutambara et al, 2016;Castelli et al, 2018;Tarjuelo et al, 2015). Many modernization and rehabilitation projects include the transference of irrigation management to water users' associations or, if the latter already exist, the strengthening of collective action and group empowerment (Salgado et al, 2021).…”